Canada Election 2015

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But the health care system doesn't work that way.

Right now, the patient arrives by ambulance to the hospital, receives emergency care and is admitted to the hospital. All costs incurred by the hospital are covered by the stipend the regional health authority receives from the government.

So, what happens if this Sikh has signed a waiver saying he is responsible for his own health care costs because he (stupidly) wants to ride a motorcycle and he believes he can't wear a helmet because his religion mandates he must wear a turban at all times in public. Will the hospital turn him away if he arrives without public (or private) insurance? Of course not - care would be given in the usual manner and hopefully he would recover.

The health authority would try to recover their costs from the patient, but unless he were independently wealthy, he would end up declaring bankruptcy and the health authority would be left holding the bill. This would affect the authority's bottom line and either (1) the government would end up covering the costs anyway or (2) the health authority would have to balance their budget by cost cutting elsewhere in the system.

If you want state sponsored health care, you have to play by the rules. There's no opting out for religious (or other) reasons......

I respectfully disagree, I can see realistic ways to work around this.

The province could, for example, require proof of private health insurance covering this specifically before issuing a helmet derogation.

I have health insurance with a Canadian company that covers my traveling to the US already, so I suppose I could easily ask them how much more they'd charge me to add the risk "health care coverage resulting from riding a motorcycle in Quebec without a helmet" to my current policy, then I would forward this proof of private coverage to the SAAQ (Quebec's DMV) and they'd have the info on file so any cop who scans my Harley's license plate will immediately see that I have the green light to legally ride with the wind in my hair, and they won't bother me.

[lio45]

P.S. from my experience with motorcycles, without a helmet, any serious accident and you're likely dead. So I don't even think the risk to the public purse is that big (how much does it cost the taxpayers to send a Sikh's body to the morgue?) in the end.

[HomeInMyShoes]

What about the issue of policing. How many times would a police officer pull them over to get proof they can ride without a helmet?

Just file this under: DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT. We have rules for all sorts of things. If you have a religion that is at odds with some privileges then maybe that's not a privilege you can have.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

What about the issue of policing. How many times would a police officer pull them over to get proof they can ride without a helmet?

Zero.

Quebec cops have automatic license plate scanners that alert the cop every time a "red flag" shows up in someone's file. (Expired tags, driver without a license, etc.)

I would assume it's the same everywhere...

For example, one of my friends' gf just lost her license (too much speeding) but if he drove her car around, he'd likely get pulled over regularly because the license plate for that car is going to be triggering an alert (the owner lost the right to drive).

So a cop wouldn't pull you over, they'd let you go without interfering as soon as their license plate scanner confirms you have the helmet derogation. At worst, they'll catch up to you on the freeway (if they saw you with no helmet from a distance), then let you go after you got scanned.

[Xelebes]

New 308 numbers came out as everyone predicting. Liberals are inching closer to overtaking the Conservatives while the NDP are in a (relatively) precipitious drop.

Splits are:

122 CPC
118 LPC
96 NDP
1 BQ
1 GRN

[Acajack]

I do think MonctonRad is mostly right in this case.

Our emergency medical services generally function with a treat first, ask questions later approach.

If you are in a life-threatening situation they don't ask to see your card. A Russian with no health insurance coverage who gets hit by a car crossing Ste-Catherine in Montreal gets taken to the hospital and treated. That's the first order of business.

I doubt that that a Sikh person riding with a turban and no helmet would get a different treatment as they wouldn't take the time to check his wallet before putting him into an ambulance and trying to safe his life.

The cost of covering people who aren't covered by provincial medicare or private insurance, and also who are covered but do stupid unsafe things, is built into the system.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Zero.

Quebec cops have automatic license plate scanners that alert the cop every time a "red flag" shows up in someone's file. (Expired tags, driver without a license, etc.)

I would assume it's the same everywhere...

For example, one of my friends' gf just lost her license (too much speeding) but if he drove her car around, he'd likely get pulled over regularly because the license plate for that car is going to be triggering an alert (the owner lost the right to drive).

So a cop wouldn't pull you over, they'd let you go without interfering as soon as their license plate scanner confirms you have the helmet derogation. At worst, they'll catch up to you on the freeway (if they saw you with no helmet from a distance), then let you go after you got scanned.

Yes, a turban-wearing motorcyclist wouldn't constantly get pulled over if such an exemption were granted, for the reasons you've given.

I even think that after a while, the cops would simply stop checking and assume that everyone of these guys have an exemption and leave them alone.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I do think MonctonRad is mostly right in this case.

Our emergency medical services generally function with a treat first, ask questions later approach.

If you are in a life-threatening situation they don't ask to see your card. A Russian with no health insurance coverage who gets hit by a car crossing Ste-Catherine in Montreal gets taken to the hospital and treated. That's the first order of business.

I doubt that that a Sikh person riding with a turban and no helmet would get a different treatment as they wouldn't take the time to check his wallet before putting him into an ambulance and trying to safe his life.

The cost of covering people who aren't covered by provincial medicare or private insurance, and also who are covered but do stupid unsafe things, is built into the system.

Yes, but what I was saying is, a Sikh with private healthcare coverage for head injuries would get treated just like anyone else, but his private company would end up picking up the tab.

The freedom to drive around on a motorcycle without a helmet would be obtained by proof of private healthcare coverage, so you'd have no situation where anyone would be driving around legally, then find himself at the hospital with the taxpayers footing the bill.

Anyone driving around without a helmet would be "pre-approved" for private financing at the hospital, and that is the reason we'd let them drive around like that in the first place.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I even think that after a while, the cops would simply stop checking and assume that everyone of these guys have an exemption and leave them alone.

I think so too, but it's already the case.

Someone with no motorcycle license (let alone insurance) could perfectly well be driving on their friend's correctly plated motorcycle (registered to an owner who has a motorcycle license), and any cop would likely just assume they're the motorcycle's owner.

It's not like we'd open the door to anything that's not already "a problem" right now. It wouldn't be anything new.

And you'd still be clearly a bit more of a "cop magnet" without a helmet, so that'd be a pretty big risk to take if your stuff isn't all "in order".

[Acajack]

So what are we waiting for? Let's do it!

Kathleen, are you there?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The inevitable result of the Conservative Party and Quebecers obsession with identity politics, attacking pregnant Muslim women in the streets:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-muslim-woman-1.3253668

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...earing-niqab-in-toronto/article26646425/

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

New 308 numbers came out as everyone predicting. Liberals are inching closer to overtaking the Conservatives while the NDP are in a (relatively) precipitious drop.

Splits are:

122 CPC
118 LPC
96 NDP
1 BQ
1 GRN

Another couple points drop and the NDP go from 96 to probably somewhere closer to 75. Just really depends on what areas they lose support in.

In one of their relatively strong ridings 308 has Megan Leslie's Halifax riding as a toss-up and I find this extremely hard to believe, whereas I find it hard to believe that the NDP are an automatic shoe-in in Acadie-Bathurst....they'll win, but not by as much as predicted right now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes, but what I was saying is, a Sikh with private healthcare coverage for head injuries would get treated just like anyone else, but his private company would end up picking up the tab.

The freedom to drive around on a motorcycle without a helmet would be obtained by proof of private healthcare coverage, so you'd have no situation where anyone would be driving around legally, then find himself at the hospital with the taxpayers footing the bill.

Anyone driving around without a helmet would be "pre-approved" for private financing at the hospital, and that is the reason we'd let them drive around like that in the first place.

Correct. (Assuming as a society we want to grant such an exemption. It's definitely workable on a practical level.)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's actually not that different.

Let's do an "acid test" based on the type of questions used in the niqab debate.

Is it an established cultural or religious custom for Sikh men to wear a turban? Yes

Does the wearing of a turban while riding a motorcycle cause potential harm to others? No

In this case, we can say that riding a motorcycle with no helmet but with a turban only entails risks for the rider himself. It's his personal choice based on his personal (and religious) freedoms. If I am involved in an accident with one of these guys there is no additional risk to me because this guy is wearing a turban and not a helmet.

Of course, there is the argument that we have universal health care. If the Sikh motorcyclist with a turban gets injured (in a way that a helmet would have prevented) we're all on the hook for his medical bill as taxpayers. This is true in theory, but to invoke the "only two veiled women have been denied citizenship" argument, how many Sikhs with turbans on motorbikes are we talking about? And how many are involved in accidents with head injuries?

The risk for the public purse in this case is extremely low, even non-existent.

So I am not sure there is any real case to be made for banning turbans on motorcycles in a climate where we are as a society very open to granting a variety of exceptions to rules and regulations for religious reasons.

If we allow the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, we can allow the turban on motorbikes.

One of the errors in your logic you already mentioned in that a higher rate and greater severity of injuries does affect the rest of society in terms of medical costs, disability benefits, loss of productivity, etc. but also when we make laws and regulations it isn't necessarily just to protect innocent 3rd parties, but sometimes also to protect the agent of the action. In the case of the helmets, there is a serious and quantifiable risk to the rider (not a vague fear that isn't easily supported by data). I know many in the libertarian camp disapprove of any law intended to protect the person facing the restriction, but regardless, that is a major distinguishing feature between the two. That difference being, that there is a real, quantifiable reason intended to prevent serious harm behind the helmet law, and there isn't with the niqab.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One of the errors in your logic you already mentioned in that a higher rate and greater severity of injuries does affect the rest of society in terms of medical costs, disability benefits, loss of productivity, etc. but also when we make laws and regulations it isn't necessarily just to protect innocent 3rd parties, but sometimes also to protect the agent of the action. In the case of the helmets, there is a serious and quantifiable risk to the rider (not a vague fear that isn't easily supported by data). I know many in the libertarian camp disapprove of any law intended to protect the person facing the restriction, but regardless, that is a major distinguishing feature between the two. That difference being, that there is a real, quantifiable reason intended to prevent serious harm behind the helmet law, and there isn't with the niqab.

And the error in your logic is that you are assuming it's riskier to ride a motorcycle with a turban than it is to walk around with a niqab.


If you're not against introducing laws/restrictions justified by the fact these new restrictions would be providing extra protection to individuals who'd personally rather not have that protection, then by your logic a niqab ban in Toronto would've protected Safira Merriman. (Against her will.)

[Nouvellecosse]

All I'm assuming is that it's riskier to ride with a turban than to take a citizenship oath with a niqab.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

P.S. from my experience with motorcycles, without a helmet, any serious accident and you're likely dead. So I don't even think the risk to the public purse is that big (how much does it cost the taxpayers to send a Sikh's body to the morgue?) in the end.

I could quite seriously detail this thread with talking about motorcycle helmets. One of my favourite topics and incidentally has a wealth of data.

I am absolutely fascinated by the general public's relative obsession with helmet laws (more so in the US) and the hyperbolic language used around said topic.

Some interesting tidbits: More pedestrians are killed each year compared to motorcyclists in Canada, perhaps we should consider helmet laws for pedestrians as well.

Interesting case study about Louisiana helmet laws:

https://wmoon.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/louisiana-injuries-and-motorcycle-registrations/

Indications motorcycle injuries/fatalities aren't generally related to helmet usage or even training:

https://wmoon.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/smeed%E2%80%99s-law-and-motorcycle-fatalities/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

All I'm assuming is that it's riskier to ride with a turban than to take a citizenship oath with a niqab.

These days it's not uncommon for safety rules to be circumvented for religious reasons.

Sometimes there are tragic consequences:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sees-mo...ak-gokarting-accident-20100408-rvci.html

Still with the turban, I would say that it's also different from the niqab issue as there is no gender rights angle to it at all.

[Bcasey25raptor]

The Liberals released their plan

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

These days it's not uncommon for safety rules to be circumvented for religious reasons.

Sometimes there are tragic consequences:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sees-mo...ak-gokarting-accident-20100408-rvci.html

The best example of common sense safety rules being ignored for religious reasons would certainly be all those Jews leaving cooking elements on unattended...

Causes a significant number of fires in Montreal every year IIRC, and some of them can be tragic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/nyregion/7-children-die-in-brooklyn-fire.html?_r=0

Should municipal fire departments start charging Jews more (i.e. higher property taxes) to make up for the risk?